From the Brundtland to Rio 2012 report from the United Nations Background Paper prepared for consideration by the
High Level Panel on Global Sustainability
at its first meeting, 19 September 2010:
Quoting some of the meatier passages:
“Unsustainable trends continue and sustainable development
has not found the political entry points to make real progress. As a result, climate change has become the de
facto proxy for implementation of the sustainable development agenda; but the framework of the climate
change negotiations are not always the appropriate forum for broader strategic discussions of sustainable
development.”
“The recent financial crisis and the beginning of the decline of trust in the liberalization and globalization model could mean some renewed receptivity for a new sustainable development paradigm. A new model could chart a
development path that truly is concerned with equity, poverty alleviation, reducing resource use, and
integrating economic, environmental, and social issues in decision making. The opportunity is ripe to move
beyond incrementalism to real systemic change.”
“Sustainable development is a fluid concept and various definitions have emerged over the past two decades.
Despite an on-going debate on the actual meaning, a few common principles tend to be emphasized. The first is
a commitment to equity and fairness, in that priority should be given to the improving the conditions of the
world’s poorest and decisions should account for the rights of future generations. The second is a long-term
view that emphasizes the precautionary principle, i.e., “where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation” (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15). Third,
sustainable development embodies integration, and understanding and acting on the complex interconnections
that exist between the environment, economy, and society. This is not a balancing act or a playing of one issue
off against the other, but recognizing the interdependent nature of these three pillars.”
“The nearly universal adoption of sustainable
development as a guiding principle is, in part, due to its flexibility. It allows various stakeholders to adapt the
concept to their own purposes.”
“Efforts to implement sustainable development have taken place in an environment of mainstream economic
planning and market-based investment, in a manner that will not disrupt overall growth. As such,
implementation has not moved beyond slow incremental steps to transformative action.”
“They note that “politicians tend not to run for office on promises of making the price of goods
reflect their real (higher) costs for the sake of sustainable development; consumers tend not to demand to pay such higher costs; business tends not to lobby lawmakers for higher prices”
“While national governments have developed sustainable development strategies and plans, and local
governments have been involved in initiatives, these actions have not led to fundamental changes. Chasek,
Downie and Brown (2010, pp. 37-38) report that few countries have lived up to their Rio commitments, stating
that National Agenda 21 efforts led to “increased academic debate, heightened public awareness and minor
adjustments in the system of national accounts and taxation rules, but they have not fundamentally altered the
way we mange and measure our national economy.”
“climate change has emerged as the de facto proxy for addressing sustainable development issues.”
“In many respects climate change has determined what a sustainable development approach to implementation
would look like. The IPCC (Sathaye et al., 2007, p. 699) states that “It is no longer a question of whether climate
change policy should be understood in the context of sustainable development goals; it is a question of how.”
“Governments have not figured out how to create the needed interdisciplinary
integration, often because sustainable development is seen as an environment issue or a development issue—
not an integrated concept.
“One reason why sustainable development is seen as the province of environment ministries and has failed to
capture the attention of other ministries is that UNCED was seen as an environmental summit (and informally
referred to as the Earth Summit). During the Rio negotiations, Chapter 2 of Agenda 21 (economics and trade)
received barely a day’s attention and was easily adopted because of a lack of representation from economic and
finance ministries. The two treaties adopted in Rio, UNFCCC and CBD, were seen as environmental treaties and
did not give the necessary attention to economic and social development, both of which are impacted by the
treaties.”
“These competing agendas underline the difficulties in integrating economic, environmental, and social concerns;
and demonstrate how interpretation of sustainable development is subject to the prevailing zeitgeist. Over the past 20 years, the “development” side of sustainable development occasionally has been prominent. The
negotiations at the WSSD in Johannesburg in 2002 saw a major shift away from environment toward human and
economic development. The MDGs were highly influential in this shift; they permeated the negotiations and
were reiterated through much of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Following the adoption of the
MDGs, all of the environmental treaties to tried associate with and implement the MDGs, wanting to benefit from the associated financing.”
“The skepticism around the discussions on a “green economy in the context of sustainable development and
poverty eradication”— a proposed theme for discussion at the 2012 Rio+20 conference—could be reflective of
the lack of traction and progress on the development side. Some developing countries are worried that the
green economy, which is not clearly defined or articulated, will replace sustainable development; or that the
green economy will be a merger of economic development and environment—leaving out social equity. This
debate will continue and could foster a resurgence of sustainable equity issues, led largely by developing
countries”
“The focus on green energy and transportation investment, as seen for example in the Republic of Korea, is precisely what sustainable development calls for: addressing the core tools of development.”
“The lack of implementation of sustainable development is partly a lack of entry points to make real progress. As
noted, the economic agenda and economic institutions have had greater influence than those governing
environmental and social issues, at both the national and international level. Environment ministries tend to be
weaker departments; and they do not control the policy tools required to drive real change.
“With no strong entry point for sustainable development, climate change has in many ways has become the de
facto proxy for implementation of the sustainable development agenda. Implementation of actions to mitigate
and adapt to climate change—such as reducing deforestation, promoting sustainable energy, improved
agricultural methods—have the potential to bolster sustainable development.
But this can be a limited approach
for sustainable development given the current state of the climate change negotiations, and that climate change
is also perceived as an environmental issue and lacks entry points.
In addition, the many other agendas now
under the climate change “tent” are working to weigh down prospects for a future comprehensive and binding
accord. There is a critical need for a deepened understanding, at all levels, of the complex interactions between the economy, social development, and the environment.”
“The recent financial crisis and the beginning of the collapse of trust in the liberalization and globalization model, could open the door for a new sustainable development paradigm. A new model could chart a development
path that truly is concerned with equity, poverty alleviation, reducing resource use, and integrating economic, environmental, and social issues in decision making. The opportunity is ripe to move beyond incrementalism to real systemic change.”
“There are hopeful signs for this paradigm shift. Some countries have linked stimulus spending, set up after the
financial crisis of 2008, with sectors associated with the “green economy” including renewable energy, green
buildings, clean transportation, water management, and waste management.
“In total, approximately US$521 billion was allocated to green activities, or 16.3 percent of total stimulus funding (Robins, Clover and Sarawanan, 2010, p. 12). The Republic of Korea, the European Union, China, Norway, Australia, and France allocated the largest percentage of their stimulus spending to green investments.”
“These investments could prove to be a first step to fuel a new green economy. This move will require radical
(that is, to the root) technology change, which could act as huge stimulus for economic activity. An increasing
number of national and sub regional governments could use this opportunity as part of their core industrial
strategy. As an example, the electrification of the transportation industry will require a massive transformation of infrastructure and how things are run, requiring huge investment and creating significant economic activity”
“Buy-in from political leaders and a coherent cross-government approach are needed elements to implement
sustainable development. Strong political leadership is required to address the difficult challenges; but that
alone is not sufficient. It is also incumbent that sustainable development permeates bureaucratic and corporate cultures and systems.”
Sorry for the long post, but this is just a taste and not everyone may want to get the pdf. A good read if you can keep the bile down.
http://sanidadambiental.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/GSP1-6.pdf